[SciPy-dev] stats.models report/preannouncement

Robert Kern robert.kern@gmail....
Wed Aug 19 20:07:55 CDT 2009


On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 18:05, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/8/19 Stéfan van der Walt <stefan@sun.ac.za>:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> 2009/8/19 josef.pktd@gmail.com <josef.pktd@gmail.com>:
>>> Most importantly, almost every result has been verified with at least
>>> one other statistical package, R, Stata and SAS. The guiding principal
>>> for the rewrite was that all numbers have to be verified, even if we
>>> don't manage to cover everything. There are a few remaining issues,
>>> that we hope to clear up by next week. Not all parts of the code have
>>> been tested for unexpected inputs. We are currently adding checks for,
>>> and conversions of array types and dimension. Additionally, many of
>>> the tests call rpy to compare the results directly with R. We use an
>>> extended wrapper for R models in the test suite. This provides greater
>>> flexibility writing new test cases, but will eventually be replaced by
>>> hard coded expected results.
>>>
>>> The code is written for plain NumPy arrays.
>>
>> Thanks for all your hard work!
>>
>>> We can either package it as a scikit or as a independent
>>> package distributed through pypi.
>>
>> SciKits are also distributed through pypi.  It's basically just a
>> naming/namespace convention.  All scikits.* packages from pypi are
>> also listed automatically on
>>
>> http://scikits.appspot.com
>
> Thanks,
>
> Is it worth setting up a scikits if the code goes into scipy in a few months?
> I never looked at how high the setup costs for a scikits are. A plain
> python package looks easier. However, I have no experience in
> distributing a package.

It's always a chunk of work. It's no worse with scikits.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
  -- Umberto Eco


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list